Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New quantum theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

New quantum theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article presents a new theory based on the idea that photons have mass and an off-centre nucleus. It is straight copy of this paper published last month in the Indian Journal of Science and Technology. Copyright permission is claimed on the talk page, with an OTRS ticket number. Whether or not the physics is any good, Wikipedia does not publish original research: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." Searches turn up quite a lot of "New Quantum Physics" but nothing about this one - unsurprisingly, as it was published only last month. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete as inadequately sourced WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete as fringe science/original research/fails notability.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as inadequately sourced WP:OR. The content is utter nonsense. WP has no ban on such pseudoscientific theories but the bar for inclusion is set very high, requiring reliable sources reporting on the controversy in detail. The only actual source is the paper it's a copy of, which being similarly nonsensical is of no use as a source.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly original research spam. No prejudice on recreation in the (unlikely) case it gets some attention from the scientific community. Also I have doubts the paper is published on an actaully reliable academic journal. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it raises doubts about the journal that it is published in. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Well, respected journals like PNAS have published utter nonsense too. What raises my hairy eyebrows is the lack of a DOI and of any impact factor information in the journal kinda-crappy website. Plus, the article is categorized as a "popular article", which I don't really understand what are supposed to be, but are distinct from "research articles" of the same journal -could be a category for "non peer-reviewed random stuff". -- Cycl o pia talk  00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. single source. In fact a copy of the cited article. Indian science and technology lost my respect. - Altenmann >t 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There, there. Let's not make generalizations. Crap pathological science thrives everywhere. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian journals are typically of a poor quality from what I have seen of them cropping up on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - clearly original research, no evidence of notability. Scog (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as poorly sourced WP:OR. — sparklism  hey! 08:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article has been rewritten as a brief summary referenced to the Indian Journal of Science and Technology paper, but it still fails WP:NOR for lack of secondary sources. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - both original research and spam. Created by a single-purpose editor who is almost certainly promoting their own work. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SPAM. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per FRINGE and WP:NOR. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: OR and non-notable self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's SNOW time, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can the closing admin also delete the OR images? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a copy at User:Tushar.gupta16/sandbox which should go too, either with this or by MfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy? this is a new editor: User:Tushar.gupta16. Although there maybe not merit in this theory, I don't think anyone has looked for sources yet. Sometimes the community can be bitey. just a thought. Spoildead (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did look for sources before nominating, both on the web and in Scholar. There are quite a lot of "New quantum theory" and several different Agarwals, but the only ones that associate the term with N.S. Agarwal are the original paper and this article. Userfication would be appropriate only if there was some prospect of this being a viable article in the short to medium term, and that is not the case here. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This was an edit by a now blocked sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Being a new editor doesn't mean that the policies are enforced less, it just means it's explained to them. Userfication is for notable subjects that can be developed whereas this is primarily sourced from a Journal of dubious quality. In this case it is Original Research and there is no agreement in the scientific community as to it's verifiability, thus according to WP:RS or lack there of in this case it is WP:OR and not allowed. No one here is trying to bite an editor it's more so to protect the hard work being put forth on quality over quantity especially because wikipedia is usually within the top ten web results usually. It can affect everyone's credibility if we allow unaccepted things into the peadia..Just my opinion but maybe I'm missing something from your rationale about biting? For the record I do believe at this point in a Delete because if it's only based on original research it should not be here.  Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Hell's comments about the treatment of newbie editors. Some people think they deserve greater leeway for bad edits than experienced editors. Not so: just greater explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Snow Delete Not notable, original research, fringe science, what more could you want? PianoDan (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.